SOC 2 vs SOC 3: private detailed report vs public seal
SOC 2 and SOC 3 are built on the same Trust Services Criteria, but one is a detailed restricted-use report and the other is a short report you can publish. Most B2B vendors need the SOC 2 first.
Same foundation, very different distribution
SOC 2 and SOC 3 are both attestation reports performed by a CPA firm against the AICPA's Trust Services Criteria under SSAE 18 (AT-C sections 105 and 205). The underlying examination is essentially the same exercise; the difference is what the auditor publishes at the end and who is allowed to read it. A SOC 2 is a restricted-use report meant for your management, your customers, and their auditors under an NDA. A SOC 3 is a general-use report you can hand to anyone, post on your website, or send to a prospect without a confidentiality agreement. That single distinction drives almost every practical decision between the two.
What is actually inside each report
A SOC 2 is a detailed document. It contains the auditor's opinion, management's assertion, a full description of your system, and, in a Type 2, the specific controls tested along with the auditor's procedures and results, including any exceptions noted. A SOC 3 strips most of that out. It includes management's assertion and the auditor's opinion plus a much shorter system overview, but it deliberately omits the detailed control descriptions and the test results. In other words, a SOC 3 tells the world that you passed; a SOC 2 shows a knowledgeable reviewer exactly what was tested and how it went.
Why most B2B companies need the SOC 2
Security teams and procurement functions doing vendor due diligence want evidence, not just an attestation. They need to read the control descriptions, see the testing period, and check whether any exceptions were noted and remediated, which means they want the SOC 2 itself. A SOC 3 rarely satisfies a serious vendor-risk review because it does not give the reviewer enough to assess. For that reason, the SOC 2 is the workhorse report for B2B SaaS, and it is almost always the one to obtain first. If you only ever produce a SOC 3, expect to keep getting asked for the detailed report anyway.
Where a SOC 3 genuinely helps
The SOC 3 earns its place as a marketing and trust-signaling asset. Because it is general-use, you can publish it on a public trust or security page, attach it to top-of-funnel sales materials, and use the AICPA SOC logo to signal that an independent auditor examined your controls. It is a frictionless way to demonstrate diligence to prospects who are not yet under NDA, and it lets you keep the more sensitive SOC 2 gated behind a confidentiality agreement. The catch is that you generally need to undergo the SOC 2 examination to produce a meaningful SOC 3 over the same period, so the SOC 3 is best thought of as a public companion to a SOC 2 rather than a cheaper substitute.
How to decide between them
Start with the SOC 2 if real customers, security teams, or auditors are reviewing your controls, which describes most B2B software companies. Add a SOC 3 when you want a shareable, public-facing version to reduce friction in sales and marketing without exposing your full control details. Treat the SOC 3 as additive, not as an alternative that lets you skip the depth of a SOC 2. The practical sequence for most vendors is to run a SOC 2 Type 2, gate it behind an NDA for prospects who need to dig in, and optionally publish a SOC 3 from the same engagement for everyone else.